Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

What would *you* change?


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game General Discussion

1 to 50 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Before you read any further in this thread, or even *think* about replying, read this blog entry. I'll wait right here—you won't miss a thing. Promise!

Okay, done? Now, just to underline it, I'm going to repeat a bit of it:

We wrote:
...it's important to recognize that these big changes we're talking about are primarily about presentation, not game mechanics. We're not talking "PACG: Second Edition" here; we don't need to change the rules and mechanics much more than we usually change them for a new Base Set. Let's be explicit: we're not going to invalidate your old cards. The things we've made so far will play just fine with things from the next base set, and we'll give you easy fixes for anything that doesn't, like when we changed "before the encounter" to "before you act" between Rise of the Runelords and Skull & Shackles.

To sum up, we're looking at changes we can make to improve the game, but we aren't willing to go so far that we invalidate your existing cards.

So, my question to you all is this: What changes would you like to see?

Before you answer, let's talk a bit about "how far is too far."

In Apocrypha, when you do the equivalent of closing a location, you don't just flip it over—you actually take it off the table right then and there. And Mike said this one little adjustment had a significant effect at the end of the game—it lowered end-game cleanup time significantly, and people just felt better about it.

If we were to adopt that rule for PFACG, it would obviously have the same positive effect, but it would come with some side effects. Take the S&S 2 spell Safe Harbor, which begins "Display this card next to a closed location. While a character is at that location, instead of the first exploration of his turn, he may recharge 1d4+1 random cards from his discard pile." That change would render this card useless. In all, about half a dozen cards would be made either useless or a bit less useful with this change. So if we were to implement that change, we'd have to give you fixes for those 6 or so cards. We feel that that's pretty close to as big a change as we're willing to make. (Note that I'm not saying that's a change we actually *want* to make to the game—it's just an example of where the line might be.)

So, what are your thoughts?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll give you a couple of mine to hopefully inspire you.

I wish "temporary closing" was named something else entirely, because even though we have the rule that temp closing never triggers any closing effects, beginners always miss that, and even experienced players occasionally ask if something was supposed to be an exception. I'm not going to waste a lot of time coming up with exactly the right replacement word for this post, so let's hypothetically say that we replace it with "lock down."

Next, I would rename the "When Closing" box to something that doesn't include either "close" or "lock down"—for the sake of this discussion, let's say we make it "Location Check" (though "check" is definitely not the right word there, since it's not always a check).

Then, the villain encounter rules would tell you to "lock down open locations" by performing the location check, and then automatically unlock them at the end of the encounter. And the location closing rules would tell you to close the location by performing the location check.

And for compatibility purposes, a sidebar explains that if you're using an older card that talks about temporarily closing, treat it as if it talks about locking down, and so on.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's one more:

I wish "before you act" and "after you act" didn't have the words "you" or "act" in them. They worked good as a description, but once they became a moment in time that could be referred to ("Discard this card to reduce damage dealt before you act to a character at your location") it started to confuse people.

Again, not trying hard to find the right words, but if they were something like "pre-action" and "post-action," this text would be so much clearer: "Discard this card to reduce pre-action damage to a character at your location."


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

Some really quick feedback (I’ll provide more later once I’ve had time to think things through – you’ve opened Pandora’s Box here)…

I don’t like the idea of physically removing closed locations from the board because it adversely affects certain strategies. For example, Harsk lives to support characters from other locations. If a game progresses to the point where there is only one open location left, Harsk is forced to co-locate with the other characters, depriving him of one of his best powers (especially for dealing with villains). Also, there are numerous banes, especially villains, that have powers that affect other/all characters at the location. If the other (permanently closed) locations are physically removed from the game, you’re corralling all of the characters. And then there are those locations that have special rules, often benefits, that come into play when they’re permanently closed; and these benefits can often affect strategies and long term survivability of a character (Oh, Seoni is down to 1 card in her deck? Just put her over at the permanently closed Academy where she’s not likely to be hurt any further.). Beyond the increased efficiency of cleaning up after the game, this (hypothetical) change has a significant impact on game play and certain characters/boons.

This could be mitigated by creating some sort of free location that characters can occupy without being subject to bane effects (possibly only available once a location has been permanently closed). Whether or not this is a (new) card or simply some designated location on the table (perhaps near the blessings deck) isn’t much of an issue to me (though the latter would probably be easier).

I suggest “block/blocked” as a replacement for “temporarily close/temporarily closed.” From a character viewpoint, they’re basically blocking the villain’s escape to the other locations.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I realize it affects too many cards to completely change, but I would like it if "invokes" went away from future sets. It's impossible to explain to casual players. I feel pedantic if I try to explain it and completely arbitrary if I enforce it without explaining it.

Contributor

8 people marked this as a favorite.

B and C cards should have a number of 0 in the upper corner instead.

"B" and "Basic" create way too much confusion, and "adding an adventure deck number" of B (or C, or P) confuses my casual players.


Ron Lundeen wrote:

B and C cards should have a number of 0 in the upper corner instead.

"B" and "Basic" create way too much confusion, and "adding an adventure deck number" of B (or C, or P) confuses my casual players.

Heh, I remember at least one conversation of that type from PaizoCon.

I would like some secondary objectives or something similar. Most of the people I talk to that say they only play 1 AP or 2 do so because they think the scenarios are a bit monotonous. Doesn't have to be every scenario. This concept seems to work really well for PFSRPG (with PP being tied to secondary objectives), so I think it can work here.

Lone Shark Games

Ron Lundeen wrote:

B and C cards should have a number of 0 in the upper corner instead.

"B" and "Basic" create way too much confusion, and "adding an adventure deck number" of B (or C, or P) confuses my casual players.

This has come up a few times in discussion around the office.

Lone Shark Games

Vic Wertz wrote:

In Apocrypha, when you do the equivalent of closing a location, you don't just flip it over—you actually take it off the table right then and there. And Mike said this one little adjustment had a significant effect at the end of the game—it lowered end-game cleanup time significantly, and people just felt better about it.

If we were to adopt that rule for PFACG, it would obviously have the same positive effect, but it would come with some side effects. Take the S&S 2 spell Safe Harbor, which begins "Display this card next to a closed location. While a character is at that location, instead of the first exploration of his turn, he may recharge 1d4+1 random cards from his discard pile." That change would render this card useless. In all, about half a dozen cards would be made either useless or a bit less useful with this change. So if we were to implement that change, we'd have to give you fixes for those 6 or so cards. We feel that that's pretty close to as big a change as we're willing to make. (Note that I'm not saying that's a change we actually *want* to make to the game—it's just an example of where the line might be.)

And it might *actually* change the feel of the game in a significant way. In Apocrypha, it feels as if the world's closing in around you a lot. In Pathfinder, you often feel like masters of the world. Does a change like this alter that feeling along that axis? It's hard to know.

So we're not just looking at what we might change to speed up or clean up the game. We're looking for things that fit with the game we have, and the parts of it you really like.

Lone Shark Games

Brother Tyler wrote:
I suggest “block/blocked” as a replacement for “temporarily close/temporarily closed.” From a character viewpoint, they’re basically blocking the villain’s escape to the other locations.

FYI, the term for the analogous (but not identical) action in Apocrypha is "guard," and the term for the thing like "close" is "seal."

Lone Shark Games

zeroth_hour2 wrote:
I would like some secondary objectives or something similar. Most of the people I talk to that say they only play 1 AP or 2 do so because they think the scenarios are a bit monotonous. Doesn't have to be every scenario. This concept seems to work really well for PFSRPG (with PP being tied to secondary objectives), so I think it can work here.

I don't think I understand what this means. Can you elaborate?


Mike Selinker wrote:
zeroth_hour2 wrote:
I would like some secondary objectives or something similar. Most of the people I talk to that say they only play 1 AP or 2 do so because they think the scenarios are a bit monotonous. Doesn't have to be every scenario. This concept seems to work really well for PFSRPG (with PP being tied to secondary objectives), so I think it can work here.
I don't think I understand what this means. Can you elaborate?

Secondary success conditions in the PFSRPG manifest as subduing some villain or getting some particular item. I think there are some scenarios in PACG that are like this already - Muminofrah's Amusement, the Demondome scenario that lets you upgrade your Radiance sword, etc. But those are scenarios designed around a particular thing.

I could see a particular manifestation around getting a number of boons (eg 3-3C in Season of Plundered Tombs). Or closing out a side location (or extra location!) before defeating the villain. Or only defeating the villain by less than 6. These secondary conditions then can gain favor with whomever you're reporting to and you can get a little bit extra from them, or maybe you'll trade it in for that really nice sword that you want in your deck. It does add to bookkeeping of the scenario.

PFSACG sometimes gives you rewards that are "little boons" - similar to the Runes that the Pathfinder Adventures app just announced, where you can get a one-use upgrade for that critical moment.

I think there's a lot of ideas that have already manifested themselves here, but it's a matter of tweaking the sliders.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rule I've always found awkward is that you can pick cards from adventure number minus two if you run out when rebuilding your deck. Not the rule itself so much, but the way it encourages you to play in odd ways to deliberately short yourself of cards. I can think of two, somewhat opposing alternatives, either of which I'd like better:

1. You can access all adventure-minus-two cards without having to short yourself of them first.

This what we did when we played RotR. At the time we saw our decks as individual, and thought that if someone else owned a card then they had every right to refuse to give it to you regardless of whether they intended to use it themselves. Just like ownership works in real life. Thus with a bit of trading around it was then so easy to rid yourself of unwanted cards we figured we might as well just ignore the constraint altogether and grab whatever adventure-minus-two cards we wanted whenever we wanted. Although we were wrong about card ownership, you can still work around the rule other ways, and in the app, where (because it's a computer game) being a munchkin is not even something to blink at, this happens a lot apparently (for some definition of "a lot" anyway). In hindsight I regret we played it this way, though only because RotR was already too easy (especially the later scenarios).

I actually think the best way to implement this would be to simply add the following to the rules:
"At the end of each scenario, you may banish any number of cards from your collection."

This would also have the (positive in my view) side effect of letting you remove-from-the-box basic boons you'd acquired during the scenario. Yes it can technically be an "interesting strategic choice" whether to acquire them or not, but frankly it's not really that interesting, and it comes at the cost of being a total flavour-fail.

Alternatively...

2. You can only ever get basics straight from the box to fill out the missing spaces.
2a) But... you have a "stash", which works the way the new stash mechanic is going to work in the upcoming app. Which, for those who don't know, means you have a pool of cards which aren't in anyone's decks but which you still own and are available at the end of the scenario.

2 on its own is potentially harsh, but it at least removes most of the motivation to short yourselves of cards. Though actually, even though it seems harsh, at the same time having to pick a basic is usually still better than having to keep some random card that you happen to already have. (you'd need to add something about being able to pick from removed cards in case there's no basics of that type left in the box, but I honestly never felt like this was something you shouldn't be able to do anyway).

If you add in the stash, now nobody is likely to get stuck with cards they really don't want (or if they do it's their own bad stash management). And you can also save up for that card feat you're about to get next scenario. As well as the various other problems solved and opportunities created by the stash.

I actually don't think I'd want to see a stash applied retroactively to earlier scenarios, just as a balance thing, but I like the idea when the game is balanced around it. It's being added "retroactively" in the app, but then again the app comes with its own hard-mode so compensate.

Speaking of which, the one other, completely unrelated thing I'd like to see is an officially sanctioned method of increasing the difficulty, for more experienced players (and, I suppose, the converse for beginners). I know of lots of ways of making it harder, but what's good about an officially sanctioned approach is that:
* It's thought through, and for future sets maybe even designed-around.
* It doesn't feel arbitrary, you can achieve something that you didn't just make up yourself.
* You can compare your experiences with other people.

As for how, I'm sure you can think of plenty of ideas. The app came up with some, as far as they go, I particularly like the "harsh version of the scenario power", and I particularly like the movement constraint - I've found it adds a lot of depth. Not such a fan of the random other powers that get added, but they do the job too. The other good idea I've heard is simply adding 1 location (doesn't work for 6, but who really needs to make 6-player harder anyway!).


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

First I'd like to thank a lot Mike and Vic for the opportunity. The #1 medal of this game is the support from the guys in charge and how they are wise and open on the subject of improving it.

A) On the above already mentioned ideas
Since we discussed for it many times (I know, I'm pushy) and already house ruled it in my group I can do nothing but fully support the revamp of all wording around "closing" a location.

Replacing B and C by 0, and P by 1 is a great idea (you can leave a B, C or P somewhere on the card in very small font, because nobody cares).

I agree "invoke" is tricky, but not sure how to fix that.

Secondary quests is something we do: like to get loots, rather than just having it as a scenario reward, you need to close a certain location or defeat a certain card a some point. Great idea, but doesn't really belong in that thread IMHO: you don't need to change any rule for that - unless you want to - you just have to put the additional rule on an environment card.

Getting cards when rebuilding the deck between scenarios: well since we already house ruled that we take random cards rather than select "adventure-minus-two cards", I can only support Irgy on that one. Feels strange to get good cards for free (sometimes even greater than the cards in your game). Actually it may even pushes you to banish cards in order to select your game at the end of the scenario. Doesn't feel like Role Playing. That's why we said that when you go shopping because you broke your stuff, you only get basic stuff and you do not get to chose (you take what's available in the village). Also, that makes acquiring any boon a nice experience.

B) New ideas

Avoid pre examination of the blessings when you need to take them from the blessing deck.

Make the whole process between games clearer by having an official step by step (starting with dealing with displayed cards, unclosed locations...).

A set of 10 "generic henchman" cards for non unique henchman, so you only need one copy of each hench that you grab from the box when needed (just like servitor demons) > that will give room for other cards in each extension.

Some penalties for losing a scenario. Feels bad that losing actually improves your deck.

Manage connections (possible moves) between locations as per the Obsidian app, (although we already do it by adding it at scenario level so that may not need a change in rules.

We have a "please hold" from Vic about what to do with "lost" loots that weren't removed form the game. I like the idea of a side quest (see above) that could bring them back (e. g. each loot of AD N is linked with a location of AD N+2. When you close that location, you get the loot if it wasn't removed from the game and is not already in play).

Dead characters is IMHO still an open subject. See the Permadeath issues in Obsidian.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I don't know how feasible that is but I would like everything regarding damage types (immunity, reducing damage, etc) to be made more readable. Take the WotR Devastator for example:

Devastator wrote:
The Devastator may not be evaded and is immune to the Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, Mental and Posion traits.

Every time I forget those immunities while discussing how to do the check with my friends I have to reread the 3 lines paragraph. This example is still fairly easy since it translates into 'only use weapons' but there are several cards with 'asymmetric' immunities. It might be even more important for armor, as I couldn't logically deduce the majority of damage types that armors in MM protect against, and I have to reread them all the time when playing.

There are several ways to go about this; the relevant traits should be Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, Mental, Poison, Slashing, Piercing and Crushing, Combat, Melee, Ranged and Attack, so 13 in total. The traits could be color coded like the Trigger trait to make them immediately visible, or Icons could be introduced either next to the words or replacing the words entirely.

More generally, while I like the explicit texts on the cards, it would be nice if it was reserved for the unique abilities of the cards, and the readability could be much improved by 'hardcoding' only the most frequently used powers similiar to the way Magic the Gathering does it. I'd prefer something like

Devastator wrote:

Unavoidable, Immunity: Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, Mental, Poison.

where the damage types are color coded and/or replaced by icons, since you can immediately tell whats up even with a short glance.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

If B and C were replaced by 0 I'd still want them on the card somewhere so I can separate out the C cards if I like. For example, in OP, it's better to take them out (if <= 4 players) to reduce the amount of "0" boons. Also, P cards count as 0 for OP so replacing P with 1 would affect that.

I'd make cards returned to the box after a scenario count as banished for purposes of permanently removing them from the game. Right now we do a lot of deliberately not attempting checks in order to get rid of old cards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Irgy wrote:
The rule I've always found awkward is that you can pick cards from adventure number minus two if you run out when rebuilding your deck. Not the rule itself so much, but the way it encourages you to play in odd ways to deliberately short yourself of cards...

- I can't like enough Irgy's post, as he nearly word for word expresses my thoughts on Deck Rebuild. The only difference is, I would like to see both "free AD#-2 pick" AND a Stash.

- STASH! Yes, it's worth mentioning twice. It will allow at least *some chance* that someone sometimes actually takes a "banish on use" card in their deck; also, will not make my solo Seoni hate the universe if she finds the Deathbane Crossbow before she had the chance to pick up a Card Feat; also, will give players a chance to actually take some of the more "fiddly" cards for a "test drive", to see how they work with their decks, instead of having to make a judgement call right there and then if the card is worth it (and I'm talking mainly about Loot here, which is near impossible to re-obtain currently) - speaking of which:

- Loot should be added to the box, if not taken; obviously, this change would be redundant if Stash is introduced, but it would *still* be more consistent (as opposed to "So, those cards I acquired go back to their Item/Ally/Weapon... slots back in the box, and I can meet them again later, but this one particular card - which, supposedly, "apart from the way loot cards are acquired, loot cards behave just like other boons of that type" - must actually be put in another place, never to be seen again ?!?"). OK, disclaimer about this point: I *can't* actually find a single indication in the Rulebook that Loot that isn't taken is not put together in its Card Type compartment, but I seem to remember there being a consensus about it?

- +1 to all of Vic's suggestions, for the exact reasons he mentions (most of them having been a matter of discussion on these forums multiple times - the best indication that there's a room for improvement there)

- I am *strongly* against removing closed locations mid-game - not that I believe there's any real danger of it happening. Some of the strategic considerations have already been mentioned, and I also fully believe the change of "feeling" that Mike is talking about *will* be a real thing. But mostly - I really don't understand the "lower end-game cleanup" argument; for my group, having to "disassemble" a location mid-game (we put failed banes/boons beneath the location card, so we have easy reminder what has already passed) will actually break up the game flow and take us out of the moment; at end-game, if we have to break down 8 or 7 locations makes exactly *zero* difference. And finally, I think anyone would agree dispite any similarities, Apocrypha and PACG are their own things, and there's no need to artificially try and make the even more alike.

- +1 to B/C indicators becoming 0; replacing P with 1 makes sense currently, however...

- Add Promo cards immediately!: having to add them only in AD1 is one of the most ridiculously arbitrary rules ever. It's just one of those "fiddly" details, that's not much by itself, but when compounded with a bunch of other exceptions and corner cases - really add to up to a great and unnecessary "game memory" overhead. (And, seriously, most players would have a grand total of ONE promo card when starting a new AD0 - is this really worth to create an *exception rule*??)

- I *do not* want separate Difficulties: from what I've seen/experienced with computer game design - games are ever only "designed around" a single difficulty tier - the rest of of the tiers end up eye-balled and/or compromised (and that's the BEST of cases!). On the player psychology side: experienced/'hardcore' players will only ever consider the Hardest difficulty as 'default', and 'the one true way to beat the game'; novice players, on the other hand, will feel their accomplishments diminished, because they didn't beat the 'real' game. I'm not saying those perceptions are good or bad, or that they should stop the introduction of difficulty tiers, but they should be taken into account. For my money, the overhead is not worth it, and for me it would translate in just another "adventure/scenario" powers that I would have to keep track of on a separate "Difficulty Sidebar" or something

- Side Quests: Yes, please! In the sense of, "additional objectives, that yield additional rewards" - and these, it must be stressed, should be *clearly communicated and "plannable-around" at the start of scenario*. Good Example: Wardstone Fragment (you see the Location from the get-go) and Trove of Tef-Naju (only learn about it when you meet the villain, but if you feel unprepared - you then are faced with a choice - should you *intentionally* fail the villain to get a better chance at getting the Trader?). Bad Example: that Henchman that gives Natron Fang - he's mixed up with another henchman in the location, and if you meet Henchman 2 first and close the location - buy-buy Natron Fang forever (obviously, this is for groups that don't look at Henchmen/Villains ahead of the game, so they couldn't even know there *IS* a Loot to gain before they lost it - but I have the impression a lot of groups play like that).
Also, somewhat relevant to the above Difficulties point - the 'Side Quests' are an exceelent way to let the players self-regulate their scenario difficulty, without feeling arbitrarily punished/patronized by the game.

- "Invokes": I agree it's one of the more 'fiddly' rules; however, it filled a logical gap for my player group (admittedly, all experienced players), but unfortunately I can't remember all the examples they gave why it is a great thing. IMHO, 'invokes' brings more to the game than it takes away, so I'd like to see it stay for its huge design and tactics potential.

Doppelschwert wrote:
Devastator wrote:
The Devastator may not be evaded and is immune to the Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, Mental and Posion traits.
Every time I forget those immunities while discussing how to do the check with my friends I have to reread the 3 lines paragraph. This example is still fairly easy since it translates into 'only use weapons'

- not really, there's also Force, Mental, and the occasional 'non-Trait' spell (Holy Light). However, there is a valid point here, and I wouldn't be against if all immunities are extracted into a separate concise paragraph like "Immune to X, Y and Z." (And yes, the "elemental lottery" with MM armors was a hugely unfortunate decision, in my experience, but I hope it will remain in isolation, due to that set's fixation with elemental traits). The fact is Vic/Mike have expressly stated they don't want to go the Magic way of "codewords" - I believe the argument was they don't want novice player interrupting their game by constantly having to check with the Rulebook what each 'codeword' means (and also incurring an ever-growing learning overhead when each set introduces new 'codewords'). For me, as an experienced player, that's not ideal, but I can see their point.

- I am *strongly against* generic "placeholder" henchmen: this ruins the atmosphere for me, which is one of the big draws of the game

- Relax the "must relate to the situation" rule: Granted, such change should be approached very carefully (I can't even imagine all the possible repercussions or the right wording; I still don't think being able to play Cure mid-encounter is a good idea), but if done well and the worst off-trade is players being able to "I Bird Feather Token my Masterwork Tools to you, so you can beat your Barrier" - that's more than worth it to eliminate novice (and sometimes - even experienced) players' confusion over what and when and why can/'t be played

- selectable player turn order within a 'cycle' ('cycle' being the collection of one of each player's turns): without doubt, this does make the game easier (for what many players already consider an 'easy' game), but it also offers a huge upshoot in choice and tactical considerations, which for me is a net positive. (This will incur problems with "At the end of your turn..." cards being played off-turn, but it is easily remediable if such cards are re-worded to "At the end of the cycle...")

- Permadeath. Must. Go!: at least as a 'mandatory' play mode. At worst, this rule just makes the game 'lose face' ("Wait, you may they *seriously* expect us to play like that?!?"); at best - players just come up with their own 'punishments' for disregarding this rule (I know the devs have seen the Homebrew threads).
Now, I know Permadeath has its proponents, so I'm not about expunging it completely, but come on - make a poll; get some metrics from Obsidian; do whatever! Who knows, maybe I draw my conclusions from an isolated pocket universe of gamers, but if the majority of your player base consciously disregards your rules (which is my impression) - it's time to change.
I'm aware of the whole 'actions must have consequences' argument, but my group (as just an example) plays that a character death equals a Scenario failure - and given the amount of times we can get together, and the time a single 6-player game takes - we never felt we avoid "consequences", and we never approached a possible death lightly.

- Get real about the whole "you must have played all the scenarios if you want all the feats" concept: So -and I'm going out on a limb here- you people to play your game; you want NEW people to learn your game; and you want people to have fun with the hundreds of characters you've created. Sometimes, that just means a new character is going to join a party with an Adventure-in-progress; or sometimes a player had to skip a scenario that granted a feat. This is another limitation that I haven't observed anyone abiding by - we're not going to penalize a player's character just because real life intervened, and the whole idea of not getting feats if you don't "catch up to other players" first just feels like the Pathfinder Police standing over your should, "tsk-tsk"-ing disapprovingly. I suppose, what I'd like to see is a "Character Progress" reference table, so if a new player joins us in Scenario 3-2, he can quickly see to what Feats he's entitled to to bring him on par with the rest of the party, and then promptly join in in the fun.

ryric wrote:
I'd make cards returned to the box after a scenario count as banished for purposes of permanently removing them from the game. Right now we do a lot of deliberately not attempting checks in order to get rid of old cards.

- ^That. I get it's a 'tactical choice' (get immediate benefit now VS improve your boon pool for later scenarios), but it's not a very interesting one, it's certainly not a pleasant one, and it's definitely overstaying it's welcome. Also, pretty much everything non-Magical from AD0/1 should be Elite at best (I'm looking at you Heavy Crossbow!), so maybe finally we stop call the AD6 boons "the ones you'll never get to play with"...

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Vic Wertz wrote:

I'll give you a couple of mine to hopefully inspire you.

I wish "temporary closing" was named something else entirely, because even though we have the rule that temp closing never triggers any closing effects, beginners always miss that, and even experienced players occasionally ask if something was supposed to be an exception. I'm not going to waste a lot of time coming up with exactly the right replacement word for this post, so let's hypothetically say that we replace it with "lock down."

Next, I would rename the "When Closing" box to something that doesn't include either "close" or "lock down"—for the sake of this discussion, let's say we make it "Location Check" (though "check" is definitely not the right word there, since it's not always a check).

Then, the villain encounter rules would tell you to "lock down open locations" by performing the location check, and then automatically unlock them at the end of the encounter. And the location closing rules would tell you to close the location by performing the location check.

And for compatibility purposes, a sidebar explains that if you're using an older card that talks about temporarily closing, treat it as if it talks about locking down, and so on.

Agreed with this one, I think changing it to "block" would work fine. "When a character encounters the villain, you may attempt to block your location by performing the action listed under "To block or close"

Vic Wertz wrote:


I wish "before you act" and "after you act" didn't have the words "you" or "act" in them. They worked good as a description, but once they became a moment in time that could be referred to ("Discard this card to reduce damage dealt before you act to a character at your location") it started to confuse people.

Again, not trying hard to find the right words, but if they were something like "pre-action" and "post-action," this text would be so much clearer: "Discard this card to reduce pre-action damage to a character at your location."

Agreed. Just having a concrete set of turn steps would solve this issue. Something like:

Encountering a monster wrote:


When a character encounters a card, follow these steps in order:
Step 1: Encounter - Powers which say "When you encounter" occur in the order of the players' choosing.
Step 2: Pre-Defeat - Powers which say "Before you act" or "Before you attempt a check to defeat" occur in the order of the players' choosing.
Step 3: Check to Defeat - Powers which say "For your check to defeat" or power which increase or decrease the difficulty of a check to defeat, or powers which add dice to the check to defeat occur in the order of the players' choosing. After all of these powers occur, the player rolls their check to defeat. If there is a second or third check to defeat, all of the same powers can occur in between these checks.
Step 4: Damage from combat - If you failed your combat check and would take damage, powers which reduce damage dealt to you occur in the order of the players' choosing.
Step 5: Post-Defeat - Powers which say "After you act" or "After your check to defeat" or "When defeated" occur in the order of the players' choosing. Exceptions: Powers which say "immediately" happen first. Powers which cause the encountered card to be shuffled, banished, etc. happen last.
Eliandra wrote:


So I realize it affects too many cards to completely change, but I would like it if "invokes" went away from future sets. It's impossible to explain to casual players. I feel pedantic if I try to explain it and completely arbitrary if I enforce it without explaining it.

I completely disagree. I just think that "invokes" needs defined a tad bit better. Here's the current definition:

"A check invokes a trait if it has or is against a card that has that trait.
A card invokes a trait if it has that trait. A bane also invokes a trait if it deals only damage of the type that matches that trait."
I think the part that people don't get is the "A check invokes a trait if it has or is against..." because it's sometimes tough to tell when a check has a trait. Does a check against a bane using the Melee skill have the Strength check? If you're rolling your Strength die for it, then yes. Etc. Does a combat check against a bane for a character not playing any cards at all (i.e. "punching") have the Melee trait? Apparently yes, but that one is hotly debated. Perhaps a slight change to the definition would help, but I don't have a suggestion on wording worked out at the moment.

Ron Lundeen wrote:


B and C cards should have a number of 0 in the upper corner instead.
"B" and "Basic" create way too much confusion, and "adding an adventure deck number" of B (or C, or P) confuses my casual players.

YES PLEASE! The "B" and "C" set indicators are useless (and personally I'd love to see the "C" deck go away completely in the new base set format). "P" has a purpose to let you know that the card is a promo, but that could be indicated somewhere else, or could even become a trait (which other promo cards could then refer to, perhaps? Just spitballing.)

Other things mentioned above:

-I do like the idea of secondary objectives, especially if you're thinking of moving to a larger scenario card/sheet that can hold more story information. It'd be cool, for example, if you had to gain a certain number or type of boon in a scenario in order to gain a given Mummy's Mask trader. (Too late for that now, obviously, but that's the TYPE of thing I could imagine for secondary success conditions).

-GENERIC HENCHMEN YES PLEASE. It always seems like such a waste to have 8 copies of a henchman come in a deck of cards. Seven of those could be unique boons or banes instead!

-A side quest-type thing to recover loots that weren't kept would be cool. Even just a quick blurb on each scenario which includes a loot as the reward saying "To regain LOOT X if it has been banished, replay this scenario but add the henchman XXX to XXX location and add an extra barrier to each other location."

-Ryric pointed out that "P" cards count as "B" for organized play, but I think making them count as "1" instead, since they're suggested to be added to the box when you play "1" scenarios, would make more sense anyway.


"So we'd like to change the product mix and presentation of the game. We're asking ourselves a lot of questions. Do you really need a new Cure card every time we start a new storyline?"

Well if you want to significantly reduce the price of a base box and it sounds like you do, is there any reason to sell basic weapons, armor, spells, items and blessings (I mean how many blessings of the gods do I really need to own...) with every base box?

Seems like you could make a substantial dent in base box price by taking that stuff out of the base box and selling an adventurers equipment box and/or letting people re-use basic equipment from previous boxes.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

My biggest suggestion is expanding scenarios. I feel like you do yourself a HUGE disservice by condensing all the rules, objectives, and flavor of a scenario into a tiny little card. Have scenarios use multiple cards or use a larger card for scenarios so you have more space to design dynamic, interesting scenarios and objectives.

Scenarios that require teamwork: The biggest problem my group has with the game is that the it doesn't emphasize teamwork as much as other games. In other games like Arknam Horror or Shadowrun Crossfire, everything you do directly contributes towards the objective. There's back and forth between team players as everyone discusses how each turn should play out. It feels like player turns are team decisions rather than player decisions. You don't have much of this in PFACG. Everyone splits up and goes to different locations. Your turn has little impact on the other players unless you encounter a henchman or a bane that affects other characters at your location. You don't have a meaningful impact on the objective unless you find a henchman or the villain. There's little interaction between players beyond blessings unless you have a character with a power that helps someone.

I think you can mitigate this issue by changing up scenario objectives so players feel like they're actively contributing to the team. This issue is addressed in some products, but they're the exception, not the norm.

Dynamic scenarios: Scenarios often feel monotonous because they don't change or offer unexpected twists and turns. Other games have mechanics that throw a curve ball once in a while (like Crossroads in Dead of Winter) or have scenarios where objectives change or evolve depending on how well (or poorly) you're playing (Arknam Horror). In addition, scenarios in PFACG don't seem to have any effect on future scenarios (even in an adventure path) and don't have secondary objectives or alternate ways to resolve the scenario. They're too simple and formulaic. I know some scenarios switch things up and that scenarios in later products try to break formula, but I still feel like the general "find the villain" formula is a straitjacket.

More flavor: All of the flavor is on a tiny bit of text on the scenario card. Sometimes it's even hard to tell if the scenarios are part of the same story!

More modular: The game assumes you have a bunch of buddies that will all regularly sit down together and play a set from adventure deck #1 to adventure deck #6. If you don't have a group to regularly sit down and play it, then you basically can't play this game at all. Pick up games are pretty much impossible unless you use the basic scenarios because adventures are not modular. You have to play them in order with each scenario expecting your character to have a number amount of feats. It would be nice if there were adventures and scenarios not tied to an AP so you can just mix and match and play them whenever as long as your characters could live up to the challenge.

Concrete leveling system: This suggestion is related to making the game more modular. Instead of relying on scenarios to tell you when you gain a feat, I'd rather if there was a standard leveling system where your character has a "level" and there's a table in the rulebook (or on a reference card) that tells you what feats you have at any given level. This would make it easier to see how far each character has progressed and make it easier to draft up a higher level character if you have friends playing a higher adventure scenario.

After all, the class deck product line was designed with pick up games and organized play in mind. This would help that a lot. This would help make your character "portable."

Change "adventure deck number" term: "What is an adventure deck number?" is a common question I get from new players. This always degenerates into a discussion where I have to explain what it is and why cards say "add the adventure deck number." Eventually, someone also asks "what is the adventure deck number for a base set?" You could eliminate all of this confusion just by using a different term. For example, "adventure level" or "scenario rank." Suddenly, it makes a lot more sense what it is and why a card uses it in the calculation.

Change up the deck boxes: I really dislike the deck boxes. They're flimsy and requires you to put the cards sideways into them. I had cards get damaged as a result of it. Worse is that the base set boxes are designed to fit these awkward boxes despite many people I know just throwing them away. I'd rather the deck boxes were designed something like standard deck boxes (think Dragon Shield).

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

There are two parts to the definition of "invokes."

Part 1 wrote:
A check invokes a trait if it has or is against a card that has that trait.

As a rule, this is pretty straightforward. The thing that makes it complicated is not the rule itself—it's the fact that figuring out what traits a check has is too complicated. And part of the reason that's so complicated is that we didn't fully understand it until people started asking questions after Runelords was released. This is an area we should look at cleaning up (though I don't have a ton of confidence that we can clean it up enough without breaking too much). But if we could, that would simplify the first part of "invokes" without actually changing anything.

Part 2 wrote:
A card invokes a trait if it has that trait. A bane also invokes a trait if it deals only damage of the type that matches that trait.

This is actually very easy to simplify. All we have to do is this: If a bane deals only damage of a single type (other than Combat damage), we add that trait to the card. Then this rule becomes simply "a card invokes a trait if it has that trait." And here's where it gets fun—with that definition, we don't actually have to ask whether a card invokes a trait, we just have to ask if a card has the trait. Which means we can remove the entire second part of the definition.

All we would have to do is issue errata to every bane that deals only damage of a specific type, and issue a compatibility ruling that says older cards that reference "cards invoking traits" should be treated as referencing "cards having traits."

We contemplated all this before we published "invokes," but since we figured out we'd have to errata about 35 cards to do it, we decided against it.

(Also, doing this would prevent us from making powers that care about cards invoking the Combat trait or the Ranged trait, but I don't think we ever want to do either of those things anyway.)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Longshot11 wrote:
The fact is Vic/Mike have expressly stated they don't want to go the Magic way of "codewords" - I believe the argument was they don't want novice player interrupting their game by constantly having to check with the Rulebook what each 'codeword' means (and also incurring an ever-growing learning overhead when each set introduces new 'codewords'). For me, as an experienced player, that's not ideal, but I can see their point.

This is still true. Same with icons. And regarding color-coding, given that a significant number of people have some form of color-blindness, it's really quite difficult to distinctly color-code 13 different things; realistically, it maxes out around 7.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
Part 2 wrote:
A card invokes a trait if it has that trait. A bane also invokes a trait if it deals only damage of the type that matches that trait.
This is actually very easy to simplify. All we have to do is this: If a bane deals only damage of a single type (other than Combat damage), we add that trait to the card. Then this rule becomes simply "a card invokes a trait if it has that trait."

So, maybe we've been playing it wrong, but we always thought that encountering a monster in a Location that says "All damage dealt is Electricity damage" means the Monsters there now invoke the Electricity trait.

Otherwise, we've noticed MM was pretty consistent in explicitly granting "All damage dealt is X" monsters the appropriate element as a trait, so we figured the contentious part of the rule ("bane also invokes a trait if it deals only damage of the type that matches that trait") is put there exactly for the purposes of covering specific card interactions and combos. Or was it put there only to cover legacy cards?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Longshot11 wrote:
So, maybe we've been playing it wrong, but we always thought that encountering a monster in a Location that says "All damage dealt is Electricity damage" means the Monsters there now invoke the Electricity trait.

You are correct that that's how it works currently, and this simplification would indeed make that work differently; there are probably a couple other minor card interactions that would change. But from a design point of view, that's probably not too big a cost. It's the three dozen cards that would have to change that are the issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eliandra Giltessan wrote:
So I realize it affects too many cards to completely change, but I would like it if "invokes" went away from future sets. It's impossible to explain to casual players. I feel pedantic if I try to explain it and completely arbitrary if I enforce it without explaining it.

Whoa. Hesitant as I am to disagree with someone I like and admire ... I completely disagree. Invokes is defined in the rulebook with three clear rules. I think it is an interesting design space. I like it.

PS When I dashed off this comment, I had only read as far as Eliandra's post. My group never had a problem with the invokes rule as it stands.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

(Posted this on the wrong thread originally, whoops)

Some things I'd like to see, some are duplicated from above:

  • Generic henchmen cards (proxies). Would free up a lot of space for other cards. Offer print-on-demand henchman packs on drivethru for those that dislike using proxies.
  • Re-do the box insert to be more friendly to sleeved cards (perhaps do dividers in a simple insert a la Sentinels of the Multiverse). Drop the idea of storing the adventure deck boxes; I don't keep the boxes anyway. I use that space for storing cards I removed from the game, cards I know I won't need anymore due to the Afghanistan Principle, and cards from future adventure decks that haven't been mixed in yet. Having it not jaggedy on the bottom would suit my purposes a lot better while also being sized appropriately to fit the boxes themselves as well.
  • Add a scenario booklet instead of scenario cards. This can delve much more deeply into the story, and gives more space for extra things (see below).
  • Add optional objectives into scenarios. Completing these objectives should make the scenario much more challenging, but offers some sort of additional reward versus completing it normally.
  • The booklet would contain a tracking sheet (additional sheets can be downloaded from paizo.com) where you can check off scenarios you've completed and optional objectives you've completed. Future scenarios can then do different things based on whether or not you've checked off certain objectives in past scenarios. For example, you could have a villain where you win by simply defeating it (rather than cornering and defeating it). However, an optional objective is to corner and defeat it. In a future scenario, if you did not corner it the first time, it could come back to hound you and make your life harder.
  • Roll the character add-on deck into the base box instead of making it a separate thing (i.e. the game should play up to 6 by default instead of needing an additional purchase).
  • Replace B/C/P with 0 in the top right (or 1 for promos since they're not supposed to go in until AD1).

More out-there ideas:

  • Ditch deck 0 entirely, have everything in the base box be 1. Or, make Basic cards be 0 but everything else be 1 (makes it more easy to see at a glance what the basic cards are)
  • Make the organized play tier system part of the base game, however loosen the requirement that your tier be within 1 of the AD number to a recommendation instead (i.e. "You CAN play things outside of your tier if you want, but we do not recommend it as things may be either too easy or too hard"). This gives room for more flavorful rewards on scenarios (such as loot). No early advancement, you tier up by completing an adventure. Don't cap tiers, let characters go until they check off all their feat boxes (but recommend retiring the character once they hit tier 7).
  • Make the Veteran trait scale by your character's tier instead of the scenario's AD number. This allows higher-tier characters to do lower-tier scenarios and still be challenged.
  • Have a main "base set" that is not flavored specifically to any AP. It would have generic banes/boons rather than be themed to any particular locale (although maybe have a slight focus on what may be found in Varisia and Nirmathas). The included scenario booklet would include a number of standalone adventures rather than a full AP. Each adventure would include a recommended tier that it be played at. I would recommend one adventure of each tier be included (total of 30 scenarios, assuming 5 scenarios per adventure). This set includes everything needed to play the game all the way through, all the banes and boons from tier 1 to 6.
  • Sell expansion sets that are flavored to APs periodically. These are not standalone games, but rather combine with the base set. They contain a scenario booklet for the AP as well as specific banes, boons, and characters geared for that AP. The expansion set contains everything needed to play the AP from start to finish. I estimate that these expansions would have maybe 220 cards in addition to the scenario booklet.
  • Sell environment sets that introduce a handful of new standalone adventures in differing locales (2-3 adventures, for 10-15 scenarios), along with corresponding banes and boons. An AP expansion could recommend a corresponding environment set, but the environment set is not required to play the AP (per the Afghanistan Principle). These would similarly be around 220 cards, meaning that the AP and corresponding environment would have a bit under 440 cards to play with in order to flavor things (as some of those would be there to support the scenarios included with the environment).

By introducing the tier system, it allows people to jump in and out much more easily than before. Playing an adventure of tier X? Just check off X - 1 skill, power, and card feats and build a deck out of cards with tier X - 2 (or Basic cards if playing tier 1 or 2).

The base set could include the Price of Immortality trio as a mini-AP (Crypt of the Everflame as tier 1, Masks of the Living God as tier 2, City of Golden Death as tier 3). Then follow with The House on Hook Street for tier 4, something for tier 5, and Tomb of the Iron Medusa for tier 6. Or, make up a new story for tiers 4-6 that follow their own mini-arc.

Pricing-wise, the base set is going to be big, so it will probably be expensive (around $100) and include somewhere around 800 cards. However, this will be all you need to run a character all the way to the end with zero additional purchases. The 220-card expansion sets with their scenario booklets would probably be around $40 apiece. Base set plus environment expansion plus AP expansion brings the total cost to $180, which matches what it is currently. However, future APs are only $80 apiece all-in (counting AP + environment; note that the environment is not required for the AP).

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
elcoderdude wrote:
Eliandra Giltessan wrote:
So I realize it affects too many cards to completely change, but I would like it if "invokes" went away from future sets. It's impossible to explain to casual players. I feel pedantic if I try to explain it and completely arbitrary if I enforce it without explaining it.

Whoa. Hesitant as I am to disagree with someone I like and admire ... I completely disagree. Invokes is defined in the rulebook with three clear rules. I think it is an interesting design space. I like it.

PS When I dashed off this comment, I had only read as far as Eliandra's post. My group never had a problem with the invokes rule as it stands.

Oh, by all means, feel free to disagree. I figure I post my experience, and if other people disagree, they post their experience. Then we can get a whole picture. Vic is right that the problem may not be with invokes so much as traits that checks have, as well as banes vs. checks invoking things.

Honestly, all this talk of changing makes me mentally cling to my base set and cry, "Nuuuu I like it the way it is." I like straightforward corner and defeat scenarios. I like all the scenario text fitting on one card. I prefer scenarios not be too difficult. Other people disagree and have different ideas, and that's okay. In fact, if it will help the game grow and keep it around longer, it's good.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Eliandra Giltessan wrote:
elcoderdude wrote:
Eliandra Giltessan wrote:
So I realize it affects too many cards to completely change, but I would like it if "invokes" went away from future sets. It's impossible to explain to casual players. I feel pedantic if I try to explain it and completely arbitrary if I enforce it without explaining it.

Whoa. Hesitant as I am to disagree with someone I like and admire ... I completely disagree. Invokes is defined in the rulebook with three clear rules. I think it is an interesting design space. I like it.

PS When I dashed off this comment, I had only read as far as Eliandra's post. My group never had a problem with the invokes rule as it stands.

Oh, by all means, feel free to disagree. I figure I post my experience, and if other people disagree, they post their experience. Then we can get a whole picture. Vic is right that the problem may not be with invokes so much as traits that checks have, as well as banes vs. checks invoking things.

Honestly, all this talk of changing makes me mentally cling to my base set and cry, "Nuuuu I like it the way it is." I like straightforward corner and defeat scenarios. I like all the scenario text fitting on one card. I prefer scenarios not be too difficult. Other people disagree and have different ideas, and that's okay. In fact, if it will help the game grow and keep it around longer, it's good.

I like the generic corner and defeat as the main win condition as well. However, scenario cards don't give a lot of space to have optional objectives (right now things like locations or henchmen/villains have that, but having the text strewn about makes it far less accessible, especially for groups that don't read the henchmen/villains before they shuffle them in). Additionally, they are terrible at telling an engaging story (compare to the PFSACG scenarios which are brimming with story). Lack of story = lack of interest as time goes on if you're just doing same-y scenarios at differing locales. I've noticed this with a lot of the people I've played with over time.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Cards, Class Deck, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

Making promo cards count as '1' isn't consistent with the way they are handled in organized play; there they are treated as 'B', and sometimes even as 'B Basic' (if your character is of the appropriate class).

For example - Class Deck Kyra can have the promo card "Blessing of the Dawnflower" (from Iconic Heroes) in her starting hand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Promo cards should have an AD number relating to the power level of the card e.g. A promo released with AD5 should have a 5 as to have it turn up in a B or 1 game would be mega distorting. You could add a promo indicator to differenciate it from the normal AD cards


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

Yes. Promo cards should have different levels so They would be added to the game along the "right" level as all other cards. So pro cards could be anything between levels 0-6.
B and C should definitely be level 0 cards.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Matsu Kurisu wrote:
Promo cards should have an AD number relating to the power level of the card e.g. A promo released with AD5 should have a 5 as to have it turn up in a B or 1 game would be mega distorting. You could add a promo indicator to differenciate it from the normal AD cards

Um, I haven't really noticed that there's a AD1-6 power curve with promo cards. They're just "cool' cards that are spread throughout AD1-6 so they can offer a subscription incentive.


Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Longshot11 wrote:
Um, I haven't really noticed that there's a AD1-6 power curve with promo cards. They're just "cool' cards that are spread throughout AD1-6 so they can offer a subscription incentive.

There's a couple that come to mind -

Owlbeartross: When we encounter this monster in adventure 1, we often spend more resources fighting it that any villain.

Blast Vortex: CtA of 19, and requires spending mythic charges to recharge spells discarded when casting Blast Vortex. It's extremely difficult to pick up if you encounter it in adventure 1, and it's also potentially overpowered if you do manage to get it.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Matsu Kurisu wrote:
Promo cards should have an AD number relating to the power level of the card e.g. A promo released with AD5 should have a 5 as to have it turn up in a B or 1 game would be mega distorting. You could add a promo indicator to differenciate it from the normal AD cards

+1, although I would only say:

My wording wrote:
Promo cards should have an AD number relating to the real "level" of the card.

If for marketing reasons a promo card doesn't end up in a box of the same "level", it could be OK. But for the rest (including powers that care about the AD number of a card), promos should be managed like other cards.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
Longshot11 wrote:
The fact is Vic/Mike have expressly stated they don't want to go the Magic way of "codewords" - I believe the argument was they don't want novice player interrupting their game by constantly having to check with the Rulebook what each 'codeword' means (and also incurring an ever-growing learning overhead when each set introduces new 'codewords'). For me, as an experienced player, that's not ideal, but I can see their point.
This is still true. Same with icons. And regarding color-coding, given that a significant number of people have some form of color-blindness, it's really quite difficult to distinctly color-code 13 different things; realistically, it maxes out around 7.

Hey, thanks for the clarification. Never heard about the official stance on this, although it's apparent in the way the game is set up.

Personally, I think it would be fine to use a limited amount of keywords that never change (Immunity, Spell Resistance, maybe 3-4 other things; I never meant to introduce more than that in my suggestion), but I see where you're coming from and agree.

Regarding the rest, I mostly agree with Longshots analysis of the other suggestions.


Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

I would like to see it where there is a single base set. And each AP would be treated as its own expansion. So, you would not have to keep recreating a full base set with each AP.

I would like to see more scenarios. This pack is this module. That pack is that module. All utilizing cards from this single generic base set. And the cards from the module pack would have scaling abilities to increase the toughness of the challenge.

To go along with the module packs, they would be rated for a certain "level". Rules in the pack tell you how many cards and feats and skills to add to base characters to play this module.


My 2c on things others have said:

* Vic's suggestion to take the "dealing damage" rule out of invoke and instead adding those traits to the individual cards seems very sensible. Longshot11 mentions it would affect locations saying e.g. "All damage dealt is Electricity damage", but you could simply also errata those locations to give the trait to cards as well for no change in actual behaviour.

* I don't like removing locations (but I appreciate it's just an example). I like that some locations have relevant when-closed powers. I'd actually go the other way and provide more ways to take advantage of closed locations. Currently it's rarely worth the trouble to go to them but move powers like Amiri make them more relevant. And conversely more location end-of-turn powers might make movement cards just that little bit closer to being something I'd ever actually keep in my deck.

* Replacing B/C/P with 0 (or other numbers) while retaining the information that B/C/P provides elsewhere does seem like a good thing. Even understanding the rule, my friends still mock the phrase "adventure deck number B". But it is important to be able to separate the B and C cards out if needed, and I appreciate that being in a corner helps with that too. What are the character deck cards marked with? Is separating them out a problem already?

* I think secondary (tertiary in a way, since you're always trying to win + improve your deck already) objectives are a great idea, but fit perfectly well on the existing scenario, adventure and other support cards. I actually believe the constraint of the size of the scenario card is less limiting than people think, and where it is limiting it's good for encouraging simpler implementations of the ideas. Don't forget you can have an unlimited number of support cards with their own text if necessary, so there's no fundamental limit.

* Re Frencois' idea penalties for losing, I think the amount of time it takes to shuffle location decks is penalty enough! More importantly though I think it's important that you don't get a positive-feedback-loop on hard scenarios, people may never get past them. Being slightly easier next time is a good thing. I'll note though that we initially thought if you failed you had to reset your deck to what it was when you started, and it did seem a bit wierd once we found out that was wrong (though that was after we'd stopped ever failing in RotR anyway).

* Re Longshot's comment on my suggestion of difficulties, I can see his point. What I'd like, though, is something at least as official as the blog post about playing WotR 4-6 as adventure 7-9 of RotR/S&S/MM. So maybe there's still one setting in the box, but people who still want to turn it up a bit have a particular, common way of doing so if they're willing to research it.

* A few people have mentioned the lack of compelling story in the scenarios, I'd agree strongly with this. It felt like the stories were just enough to bring back fond memories for people who'd played the actual adventure path in the RPG, but far from enough to tell any sort of story at all for those unfamiliar with it (which was us). It was, on the other hand, still enough to completely spoil the plot of the adventure path for those who might get inspired to play it. For those complaining about it though, I'd like to point out that boardgamegeek has something quite excellent in this regard, which they call "adventure guide"s. I've been reading through one during my current (third) play-through of S&S, and all of a sudden I actually know what's going on and there's a coherent story. I think these are the perfect level of detail and solve the "story" problem completely. It might be nice for them to be officially provided is all.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:


...The thing that makes it complicated is not the rule itself—it's the fact that figuring out what traits a check has is too complicated. And part of the reason that's so complicated is that we didn't fully understand it until people started asking questions after Runelords was released. This is an area we should look at cleaning up (though I don't have a ton of confidence that we can clean it up enough without breaking too much)....

I did not mention that because I share the lack of confidence.

But, yes, if "figuring out what traits a check has" could be made simpler that would be my #1 change in the game.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Irgy wrote:
Vic's suggestion to take the "dealing damage" rule out of invoke and instead adding those traits to the individual cards seems very sensible.

I'm not saying we're doing that. In fact, I already said we decided against it before MM because the cost—errata for 3 dozen cards that work perfectly fine on their own—is too high.

Irgy wrote:
Longshot11 mentions it would affect locations saying e.g. "All damage dealt is Electricity damage", but you could simply also errata those locations to give the trait to cards as well for no change in actual behaviour.

Adding a sentence to locations is often not feasible due to space reasons. Also, increasing the number of cards that need errata is not a good indicator of a winning solution.

Irgy wrote:
...my friends still mock the phrase "adventure deck number B".

Cards have set indicators, which may be letters or adventure deck numbers. If a card's set indicator is a letter, you treat its adventure deck number as 0. "Adventure deck number B" does not actually exist as a phrase or even as a concept in the game.


I'm not super familiar with Golarion geography still, but Jade Regent actually spans a fairly large area - I think only AP1 is in Varisia proper. From the PF wiki, AP2 and AP3 is in the north (Linnorm Kingdoms/North Pole), AP4-6 are in Tian Xia.

Curse of the Crimson Throne also has Cheliax as its setting, so a Cheliax Region base set would be perfect for it.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
zeroth_hour2 wrote:

I'm not super familiar with Golarion geography still, but Jade Regent actually spans a fairly large area - I think only AP1 is in Varisia proper. From the PF wiki, AP2 and AP3 is in the north (Linnorm Kingdoms/North Pole), AP4-6 are in Tian Xia.

Curse of the Crimson Throne also has Cheliax as its setting, so a Cheliax Region base set would be perfect for it.

Oops, you responded to my post after I'd caught up on reading this other thread and deleted it from here to move it there because it seemed more relevant. zeroth isn't crazy. He doesn't just start spewing out Golarian geography facts for no reason.

Sorry. That is my fault for not looking closely enough to see if anyone had replied to what I wrote.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I honestly wish the recharge box from RotR came back. Maybe under a different name, and never to just say "None" but maybe as a box titled "After Playing" when there was an effect that was relevant. Sometimes I feel like the powers are just a lot of text and breaking them up visually would be helpful. I know that actually eats up some space since "After playing" becomes an entire line, but I'd like it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I really, really, really wish there was more story. Something like the organized play scenarios, packaged as a booklet with each adventure would be great. And if each scenario also told me more about the villain and special henchmen, that would be great. Like, if they said "Read this when you first encounter the villain" or "Read this when you first encounter Tsuto Kaijitsu" to tell me more about who they are and how they react to me.

And if it had an Index of Special Cards to tell you more about them, that would be great too. Like if that index had an entry for "Brodert Quink" and "Shalelu Andosana" with a sentence for each telling me who they were. And maybe entries about the loot. That would make it more immersive for me. As it is, I often go to google to try to figure out who these people are. You don't need to put "Longsword" or even "Longsword +1" in the index, but if it seems to have a proper name or be a unique card, I'd love to know more about it.

All that comes from someone who hasn't played the RPG adventure paths and so is experiencing the story for the first time.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would be happy to help work on story entries for named allies/henchmen/villains if they decided to include an index. :-D


There's one obvious PACG flaw that has bothered me for years - one that affects both new and experienced players:

Being able to read location text is critical ("at this location" effects, closing requirements, etc.), but location text is easy to miss - or just plain impossible to see - because location cards are small, far away, and difficult to read.

Location text needs to be easily readable by all players, but it isn't.

If you primarily play solo (or the digital version?), you don't notice this problem. But I typically play PACG multiplayer with 4+ players, and it's extremely noticeable in that context. New players, in particular, flat-out ignore all location text because it's literally outside their field of vision. I constantly have to remind them - every single turn, every single round - that their location has some postive/negative effect that they need to attend to. Even experienced players do this semi-regularly, which is nuts.

I'm not sure how to fix this issue, though. Oversized versions of locations? Duplicate location cards that players put directly in front of them? 3D holograms? Brain implants? You've got me.

It's also unfortunate that, after 160+ games of Pathfinder (all base sets + new Season campaigns), we're still confused by certain rules. Timing rules, most commonly, though there are other culprits. A typical example: I've just encountered a bane - what cards/powers are we allowed to use again? Something that directly affects the check? And that means...? It seems like there are enough odd exceptions that it's tough to remember what's playable and what isn't unless you're one of the 3 anointed PACG rules experts in the world - you know who you are. :)

I also notice that the rulebook is starting to get bogged down in a tremendous amount of detail to include all of the important rulings/clarifications that have been generated over the years. Making those clarifications known is important, but a 2-book system might work better. One book with critical (basic) information, and another detailed reference that includes rules that only come up 1 out of every 10 games. Eldritch Horror is a great example of this model. On the flipside, the Warhammer Quest Adventure Card Game is a terrible example because no one could understand the core rulebook and the second book wasn't much help either.

I can probably come up with gameplay suggestions as well, but phyical/rulebook stuff was all I could come up with on the fly.

Anyway, thanks for soliciting our feedback. We're huge fans of the game, and we look forward to continuing our adventures with Apocrypha and new PACG offerings.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
wkover wrote:

There's one obvious PACG flaw that has bothered me for years - one that affects both new and experienced players:

Being able to read location text is critical ("at this location" effects, closing requirements, etc.), but location text is easy to miss - or just plain impossible to see - because location cards are small, far away, and difficult to read....

Very good catch that I forgot: in large group we play all around the table and if the location is upside down for you, you will forget to apply it.

So +1 to have 2 or 3 copies of each location card so everyons can read it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

So, you guys are suggesting that there be an official licensed turntable as an accessory, right? Oh! Or maybe an official licensed table that is the perfect size that has a turntable built right in.


Hawkmoon269 wrote:
So, you guys are suggesting that there be an official licensed turntable as an accessory, right?

This is an interesting point. I don't know how y'all play, but we never put the locations in a circular arrangement. In that configuration, no one can read *any* of the locations. Instead, we always put the locations in a single horizonal line. I'm pretty good at reading upside down, so I'm always on the opposite end. :)

Anyway, you'll never catch me using the officially licensed "circular" location mats. That set-up would drive me bonkers.

Though you were half-joking, I like the Lazy Susan idea - but that would only work on a tiny table. The location cards are just too small, which makes them unreadable at almost any distance.

Frencois wrote:
So +1 to have 2 or 3 copies of each location card so everyons can read it.

A side comment: In all of our games, I've never read the flavor text on any of the location cards. If I had my location card in front of me, there's a good chance that I'd actually do that.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Frencois wrote:

A set of 10 "generic henchman" cards for non unique henchman, so you only need one copy of each hench that you grab from the box when needed (just like servitor demons) > that will give room for other cards in each extension.

Frencois wrote:
wkover wrote:

There's one obvious PACG flaw that has bothered me for years - one that affects both new and experienced players:

Being able to read location text is critical ("at this location" effects, closing requirements, etc.), but location text is easy to miss - or just plain impossible to see - because location cards are small, far away, and difficult to read....

Very good catch that I forgot: in large group we play all around the table and if the location is upside down for you, you will forget to apply it.

So +1 to have 2 or 3 copies of each location card so everyons can read it.

I'm sorry for being antagonistic in the following, but being opposed to generic henchmen cards, I find these suggestions to be mutually exclusive and/or contradictory. Locations are reused much more frequently than henchmen, and it's an easy thing having the person sitting next to a location to take care that its effect is being used properly.

What's the point of freeing up space for more cards by eliminating the henchmen, when you just fill them up again with copies of cards you don't even need to play the game, especially in small groups? I neither have enough table space to display a copy of all relevant locations in front of every player, nor do I find the prospect of dealing around location cards all the time particularly fun or engaging.

I mean - even if you need a list of locations for every player, just copy them on a sheet of paper and hand them out as a reference to everyone. More cards that I could easily replace by a sheet of paper without impacting the game is the last thing I'd like from a revision.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
wkover wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
So, you guys are suggesting that there be an official licensed turntable as an accessory, right?

This is an interesting point. I don't know how y'all play, but we never put the locations in a circular arrangement. In that configuration, no one can read *any* of the locations. Instead, we always put the locations in a single horizonal line. I'm pretty good at reading upside down, so I'm always on the opposite end. :)

Anyway, you'll never catch me using the officially licensed "circular" location mats. That set-up would drive me bonkers.

Though you were half-joking, I like the Lazy Susan idea - but that would only work on a tiny table. The location cards are just too small, which makes them unreadable at almost any distance.

Well, I was only joking in the sense that there is no way they could really include it. I wasn't joking about it be a totally awesome thing to have when you have 3 or more players. You can see the one Calthaer and I created together here. It is contest level winning awesome.

1 to 50 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Adventure Card Game / General Discussion / What would *you* change? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.